G. GAYITHRI Vs. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 5th respondent having lodged a complaint dated 28.03.2011 vide Annexure-B, the 3rd respondent registered a case in Crime No.2/2011 against the petitioner for an offence punishable under S.7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, "the Act"), vide Annexure- A and submitted FIR to the Principal District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Kodagu-Madikeri. The 3rd respondent having drawn an entrustment mahazar vide Annexure-C and having conducted search and seizure on 18.04.2011, drew up a mahazar vide Annexure-D. The voice recording mahazar vide Annexure-E was also drawn on 08.06.2012 by the respondent' Police. The 3rd respondent submitted a requisition on 15.09.2012 to the 2nd respondent to accord sanction for prosecution of the petitioner and the request was rejected on 05.01.2013 vide Annexure-F. A requisition having been submitted on 14.03.2013, the 2nd respondent again refused to grant sanction on 26.04.2013 vide Annexure-G. Thereafter, another requisition having been submitted, the 2nd respondent has accorded sanction on 21.07.2014 vide Annexure-H. The 3rd respondent having requested the 2nd respondent, on 04.08.2014, to rectify the mistake committed in the sanction order dated 21.07.2014, as at Annexure-H, and the 2nd respondent having passed an order of sanction in respect of the offence punishable under S.7 of the Act, an order dated 14.08.2014 as at Annexure-J was issued. Assailing the registration of crime in FIR No.2/2011, dated 28.03.2013 and the sanction orders dated 21.07.2014 and 14.08.2014 vide Annexures' H and J, this writ petition was filed.

(2.) Sri. C. R. Gopalaswamy, learned advocate, contended that the orders vide Annexures' F and G having been passed after careful consideration of the materials on record, the 2nd respondent is precluded from passing a fresh order on the same material. He submitted that the sanction accorded on 21.07.2014 vide Annexure-H and the rectification order issued on 14.08.2014 vide Annexure-J being illegal are liable to be quashed. Reliance was placed on the order dated 07.04.2015 passed in Criminal Petition No.7386/2014.

(3.) Smt. Anitha R., learned HCGP, appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri. Bahubali A. Danawade, learned advocate appearing for respondent Nos.3 and 4, on the other hand submitted that on careful examination of the final report of the Investigation Officer and keeping in view the ratio of decisions reported in 1958 AIR(MP) 157 1955 AIR(Bom) 61 1969 AIR(AP) 271 and 1961 Madras Law Journal (Criminal) 90 (sic), the order dated 21.07.2014 was passed. Smt. Anitha submitted that by considering the request dated 04.08.2014, to rectify the bona fide mistake which had crept in the order as at Annexure-H, the 2nd respondent passed the order dated 14.08.2014 vide Annexure-J. She submitted that in view of the dismissal of W.P.No.38512/2014, on 26.08.2014 and also the record of the case, the petition is liable to be dismissed.